Well, it does take away the excuse people use of torrenting games to "test them out" (although I'm not sure that would decrease the amount of torrenting, anyways). However, I agree that demos won't make them much money...how many times have people walked into GameStop, played the demo(s), then walked out without buying anything

I agree that it their policy about having to have a free portion is a mistake.FTP is definitely interesting, but not for everything. And demos usually don't really work as a business model.

I wonder though if a non-interactive demo would be acceptable there. Does anyone know?Something like a free 'attract mode' where you can see how it runs and how it plays, look around in the highscore tables and such, but don't actually get to start a game yourself?

This isn't a coin-op arcade -- you really do have to offer some playability in a demo. It doesn't have to be large, but does have to have some play. I think it's philosophically a great idea to require some kind of demo for every title, but it's also amusingly arrogant of Ouya to throw their microscopic weight around and outright demand it.

Towerfall is amazingly fun, and did a great job on their demo, I couldn't resist purchasing it.... BombSquad is equally entertaining... of course both require multiple people/controllers for epic fun!

The controller does suck! shoulder buttons will occasionally stick, there is noticeable lag in input at times..The controller is such an intricate part of the console, I dont understand how they managed to mess that up, such an epic fail!

All in all, for $100 I am happy with the purchase, I can deploy to a console, even if its for my own enjoyment for now...

Who has games released on it? I noticed/purchased Gunslugs.. would be interested in playing more local JGO devs games...

Something like a free 'attract mode' where you can see how it runs and how it plays, look around in the highscore tables and such, but don't actually get to start a game yourself?

sounds like the demo arcades games have.

That's exactly what I mean.

The problem with a playable demo is that you often don't really feel the need to buy it anymore since the novelty has already worn off. The arcade's typical "attract mode" worked then and I don't see why it wouldn't work now, especially for the sort of games on Ouya.

I understand why Demos don't make good business sense, but from an ideological standpoint I find the idea of not using demos (in essence forcing consumers to buy the product without having a good idea of whether they like it or not) questionable.

Then again, nowadays Demos can be monetized through adverts, can't they? Specially when you're dealing with smaller games and mobile apps.

I personally think (from my idealistic standpoint) that a proper Demo should be an integral part of the development process, both to sell the game to costumers and investors. Maybe that way (by not being something "extra" to be done) it won't have such an impact?

Technically, even most of the QA could be done with a Demo, as long as all that isn't included in the demo is simply content, rather than gameplay.

Technically, even most of the QA could be done with a Demo, as long as all that isn't included in the demo is simply content, rather than gameplay.

Anyway, just my ignorant opinion.

Yeah pretty ignorant. QA is a long dreadful process and saying that its mostly gameplay testing would be just wrong. Basically every single object in every map has to be tested for interaction and collision boxes. Items, dialogues, audio, stuff...

I dont think having demo increases the work you have to do at all, when done cleverly, but if it hurts sales...If people dont have the time and rather spend money, because they have generally more money than time - then there you go.Of course the "gamer" audience is most likely the other way around... so its about target audience as well

I should have refined my comment on QA, I know how hard it is, but it is true that if you can separate the functionality (gameplay) from the content you could, to an extent, test them separately.

If the Demo has a finalized version of the functionality, it could be tested while the content is being generated.

Certainly, all content would need to be tested, and tweaks to the functionality might happen based on those test, so this model would work better with games whose architecture makes it easy to separate the two.

For example, a game like TrackMania, where the tracks are all built with the same "tiles" could have been tested with just a sample track while the mappers worked on the rest.

I, at least, am a very big proponent of proper encapsulation, so independent modules can be tested independently as well as in conjunction with others, hence my mindset here.

Besides, I think a good demo is when you're offering a fully functional game that can be expanded by paying, rather than just a bunch of limited features. Think the very successful shareware model used by DooM back in the day.

(Again, I know this might not be economically feasible, and when you living depends on your game selling, you can't be too idealistic)

So, Ouya's attempt at redemption with all the people they've pissed off is a voucher worth $13.37 of credit towards Ouya games. I don't know how I feel about that, but I suppose it's a step in the right direction. Though, it's kind of like giving a dog a treat after smacking it in the face. Doesn't really take away the fact that they would hit a dog.

I didn't post here earlier, but Ouya's problems simply lie in the business model they've chosen for marketing. From a hardware and software standpoint, I think Ouya pushes itself very close into the niche category rather than the mainstream. It is obvious to me that they can't compete with the major 3 consoles, and since we have the ability to play all these android games on mobile devices (which is a lot more convenient), it doesn't hit a large chunk of the market that would want to play Android games.

What I realize is that it is very attractive for indie developers, but the reasoning behind that is we are being drastically undercut by the major gaming console companies. (Also, plenty of amateur indie game developers totally overestimate the scale of producing a good indie game.) The fact that the console is cheap, and relatively easy to access in terms of indie development really shines like a electric zapper.

It is because of this why most developers are pretty much glossing over the issues with the system. The controllers could be a little bit better, the in-game GUI can take a little while to get used to (and I wish it told you the price for some of the games before purchase), and the free demo system... well, this video says a lot about its success.

For me, Ouya is more like an epic experiment to see if we can generate a gaming community for Android. As many of you said, it is a little close to call to know if it'd be successful or not. I really think it needs a few SOLID flagship games that is exclusive only to Ouya. I also agree that if the demo system was optional, it would make the system more attractive for major developers.

java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites,
and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily
gaming and game production oriented community.
inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the
company managing the website of java‑gaming.org